A most excellent summary indeed. You have navigated all of the nuances exceptionally well. Notably- and contrary to what many smart and unsmart commentators say- the language of "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not parallel or track crimes and misdemeanors in criminal statutes. It may or may not but is not necessary. If the Senate decide that what you did was such an anathema to your oath duty to the country but no criminal conviction exists then it matters not. There could be one or there could not. Not necessary. Also - just as you said- the issue of whether a sitting president can be indicted and then prosecuted and so on while in office is not settled in the Constitution. Surprising how many media commentators make a flat-footed statement about that. Just as you said -the parties have to work that through and the fact that it was done one way by agreement of the parties is not binding on anyone else. It also does not mean that a president and prosecutors cannot maneuver around and try to settle issues while the president is still in office. Note that prosecutors were on Clintons arse for whitewater and perjury related to lewinsky and he paid a fine, lost his law license etc. all while was in office. He also was subpoened and testified under oath while in office. But he did all of that because he thought it would work in his favor. He could have said to the prosecutor "screw ya" talk to me when I am out of office and then the constitutional issue that he avoided when have been before them. You say: "A pardon is only germane if a crime has been committed." True but someone might argue or think "well, okay but only a judge or jury can decide if the crime was actually committed so you have to wait for the legal process to play out first before the president can issue a pardon, or there at least needs to have been an indictment. This is apparently not so. For example, if the president thinks the government might prosecute Flynn for failing to register as a foreign agent for Turkey then he could pardon him tomorrow, even though the government may not ever prosecute him or that he may not be guilty. It is true that it must be for acts that have already been committed - he cannot issue "free passes" for crimes in advance. And then there is another thorny issue that I suppose will arise at some point with some president- Trump being a likely candidate. And that is that a president can only pardon for federal crimes. But you can see that we have a number of states aching to act independently and create their own fights against trump or get at him through his family. If they start digging into his finances for example there are a pantload of- for example- banking and financial actitivties that are covered by both state and federal laws. So say Chuck Schumer and Cumo decide to conspire to go after him for some cranked new york real estate crime or to go after Jared. Trump doesn't have the power to pardon someone for violating a state crime. Oy! -TFT
No state would indict an impeached and convicted president for anything and create a circus. Governors would grant pardons should somebody try.
It's common knowledge that impeachment and conviction are considered punishment enough and so pardons are actually unnecessary anyway. By the way, you do not have to be charged with a crime to receive a pardon.
If you are saying that in reply to my post, then that was not the point. The point is that the witchhunters are going after trump, his family, and cohorts. There is discussion about how trump might be pardon one or more of them if it comes down to that and he wants to play that card. I made the point that a lot states are getting ballsy and looking for ways to put the screws to trump through state powers. Suppose for example, New York political hacks go after Jared on an alleged real estate scam or similar thing. Trump has no power to pardon him- and they know that. You think they wouldn't do it? Think again. And even if they don;t, my point stands. Presidential pardons apply only to federal crimes.
That's fine if "common knowledge" equals law which it doesn;t. Otherwise, impeachment is a process for removing the president from office but does not remove him from other legal liability. If a president goes off the rails and shoots a political opponent then he probably will be impeached and removed from office. From there, he faces the legal process just like any other citizen- well unless the last name is clinton.
Lots of chatter on right wing propaganda networks on Flynn's guilty admission. Looks like they're sowing doubt in the brain dead cultists' minds to give Trump a pass on the eventual pardon (no way the FBI let's him slide). Question is; will the pardon be through cleaner Barr or an edict?
More evidence forthcoming. https://justthenews.com/accountabil...former-lawyers-find-6800#.XqiJu4C5yS0.twitter